General principles

General principles

The General Principles subtopic provides an introduction to the basic concepts that underpin cross-border and offshore planning. It also provides an overview of the other International subtopics, which provide more detailed guidance on specific concepts (eg residence and domicile), investment vehicles (eg offshore trusts and companies) and measures intended to tackle offshore tax avoidance and evasion.

Private international law (conflict of laws)

In the global economy, individuals are becoming increasingly mobile. Conflicts of law may arise when an individual has a connection with more than one jurisdiction. A connecting factor may be residence, habitual residence, domicile, or citizenship depending on the law of the specific jurisdiction. Even where individuals and their personal representatives or trustees are based in one jurisdiction, they often own assets in another jurisdiction. As a result it is often necessary to consider private international law when advising on cross-border tax and estate planning to resolve conflicts between the laws of different jurisdictions. For information on the principles of private international law, see Practice Note: Private client and private international law—summary of main principles.

For guidance on cross-border issues relating to Wills and succession,

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Private Client News

Double taxation tiebreakers—meaning of POEM (Haworth v HMRC)

Private Client analysis: The Court of Appeal has found that the test of ‘Place of Effective Management’ (POEM) in a double taxation treaty (DTT) is not the same as the central management and control (CMC) test for company residence. POEM is frequently used in DTTs as a tiebreaker to determine in which of two contracting states a person other than an individual (eg a company or trust) is resident for the purposes of the DTT. There is limited case law, either in the UK or internationally, on how the test should be applied. The court rejected the appellants’ submissions that a tribunal determining POEM should adopt a test derived from the CMC case of Wood v Holden, with the focus upon whether the decision-making functions of the constitutional organs have been usurped or dictated to. It found no support for this submission in authorities or materials admissible to interpret the DTT. Written by Christopher Stone KC, barrister at Devereux Chambers.

Government responds to 2024 MLR consultation

HM Treasury (HMT) has published the government’s response to the 2024 consultation on the Money Laundering Regulations (MLRs), detailing changes that will be made to the MLRs to close loopholes, clarify requirements and ensure customer due diligence is targeted at high-risk activity. A draft Statutory Instrument will be published for technical feedback in due course, and laid before Parliament later in 2025 if parliamentary time allows. The government says other issues will be addressed through guidance, in collaboration with supervisors, to ensure a consistent, risk-based approach.

Private Client weekly highlights—17 July 2025

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Legislation Day is on 21 July 2025; (2) the ICAEW has launched a consultation on proposed probate registration fees for 2026; (3) analysis of Rogers v Wills, a rare example of the court finding a contract for care existed between family members; (4) the Investing and Saving Alliance proposes alternative approaches to the government’s pension IHT reforms; (5) Marcus v Marcus in which the appeal court upheld the decision that the word ‘children’ included a non-biological son; and (6) analysis of Mobile Telecommunications Company KSCP v HRH Prince Hussam Bin Saud Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud in which the court rules on the meaning of ‘place of residence’ in a bankruptcy jurisdiction appeal.

Question of the week: If an executed deed of appointment under a trust is missing the name of the appointee (due to a clerical error) would the courts generally admit evidence of the intention of the appointors as an aid to construction of the document? Or would rectification be required?

This Q&A considers whether, if an executed deed of appointment under a trust is missing the name of the appointee (due to a clerical error) would the courts generally admit evidence of the intention of the appointors as an aid to construction of the document, or would rectification be required.